Filed: Sep. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1351 MARY ANN ALAMEDA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN O. BRENNAN, Director of Central Intelligence Agency; BETTY SAPP, Director of National Reconnaissance Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01363-CMH-TCB) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1351 MARY ANN ALAMEDA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN O. BRENNAN, Director of Central Intelligence Agency; BETTY SAPP, Director of National Reconnaissance Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01363-CMH-TCB) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1351 MARY ANN ALAMEDA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN O. BRENNAN, Director of Central Intelligence Agency; BETTY SAPP, Director of National Reconnaissance Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01363-CMH-TCB) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Ann Alameda, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Marie Konkoly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mary Ann Alameda appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Alameda v. Brennan, No. 1:13-cv- 01363-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
